Nah, I've been doing some of my worse habits for even longer

Wally Olson was first. VC began as Volokh Brothers. I joined as JNoV a little while later, in 2002.

This is such a huge gift. What an incredible resource.

Been doing it for over 20 years so hard to stop now

Here's my VC post with some initial thoughts and reactions to the Liptak-Kantor NYT story revealing internal Supreme Court memos on the Clean Power Plan stay:
reason.com/volokh/2026/...

Besides the errors, contradictions, ellisions, and apparently unfamiliarity with the equitable stay factors?

As you well know, the targets were not met in every state (but exceeded in others).

Um, really?

DC Circuit effectively stayed it in 2021 after rejecting Trump EPA repeal and staying the mandate.

I think there are a range of possibilities, and the clue may not be much of a clue.

Here's what I actually wrote:
reason.com/volokh/2026/...

I did not say clerk.

a close up of a hippopotamus swimming in a body of water . ALT: a close up of a hippopotamus swimming in a body of water .

So there was no one at all in her chambers, while folks were in chambers for Roberts, Alito, and Kagan? I suppose that's possible.

Like even the 5th circuit issued stays and rejected legally premature challenges to Biden EOs (eg social cost of carbon).
(Waiting for a pineapple.)

Call the Swalwell Hotline New York and Los Angeles prosecutors investigate the former congressman, while Jeanine Pirro sets up a hotline for accusers; no one lets Ken go to crime scenes.

This week on Serious Trouble: the very bad judgment of Swalwell, Josh uses Tiger King to trigger Ken into another rant about how standing law is bullshit (with apologies to @jadler1969.bsky.social), Ken not allowed to ride helicopters

www.serioustrouble.show/p/call-the-s...

Yes, the highly variable behavior of the lower courts does make me wonder about that

Fair point.

There are multiple articles on these memos in today's NYT. This post of mine has gift links to all of them (and the memos themselves)
reason.com/volokh/2026/...

It tells you something that I had to check to see which story you were referring to . . .

And here is what I just wrote this morning:
reason.com/volokh/2026/...

Here's my VC post with some initial thoughts and reactions to the Liptak-Kantor NYT story revealing internal Supreme Court memos on the Clean Power Plan stay:
reason.com/volokh/2026/...

And in this particular context, the marginal effect of the clean power plan on climate change wouldn't move the needle in the stay inquiry. Really no irreparable harm beyond that of staying and executive action (which Court purportedly cares about). 2/2

I agree on statutory text (and I've said the Chief's W. Va opinion is weak on that score even if correct on the merits), but nor sure i want justice's fears abput, say, uncontrolled border or birth tourism to influence their votes. 1/

I look forward to it!

Opinion | Supreme Court puts the brakes on the EPA’s Clean Power Plan In a surprise move, a 5-4 Supreme Court places a hold on the EPA's effort to control greenhouse gas emissions from power plants.

Here's one of the things I wrote in 2016
www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-...

Haven't you recently been stressing the dangers of the executive branch doing things Congress hasn't authorized? I prefer rule-of-law Bagenstos to court-should-consider-policy implications Bagenstos

Important story. It also confirms what a few of us wrote at the time about what likely motivated the court.

i am not a fan of acronyms in our public comms, but after our trustees passed a resolution yesterday to advertise our Westerly Trickling Filters project i am willing to make an exception.